What Big Content wants from net neutrality (hint: protection)

The MPAA and RIAA have both filed comments with the FCC relating to the agency …

The swollen FCC docket on network neutrality is now closed after more than 10,000 comments were filed. There are some truly odd entries in the docket, including one by "Rosemary's Baby" that basically has to be seen to be believed (PDF).

But slightly less odd were the filings of two heavy hitters in Washington—the MPAA and the RIAA—which weighed in on network neutrality. The fillings, which made nearly identical points, argued that the FCC should encourage ISPs to adopt "graduated response" rules aimed at reducing online copyright infringement.

They also reveal a content-centric view of the world in which Americans will not "obtain the true benefits that broadband can provide" unless "copyrighted content [is] protected against theft and unauthorized online distribution."

That's right, we called it "theft"

What could graduated response possibly have to do with network neutrality? The movie and music businesses have seized on language in the FCC's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that refuses to extend "neutrality" to "unlawful content." The gist of the MPAA and RIAA briefs is that network neutrality's final rules must allow for—and in fact should encourage—ISPs to take an active anti-infringement role as part of "reasonable network management."

Not that the word "infringement" is much in evidence here; both briefs prefer "theft." The RIAA's document calls copyright infringement "digital piracy—or better, digital theft," and then notes that US Supreme Court Justice Breyer said in the Grokster case that online copyright infringement was "garden variety theft."

To stop that theft, the MPAA and RIAA want to make sure that any new FCC rules allow ISPs to act on their behalf. Copyright owners can certainly act without voluntary ISP assistance, as the RIAA's lengthy lawsuit campaign against file-swappers showed, but both groups seem to admit that this approach has now been hauled out behind the barn and shot.

According to the RIAA, "Without ISP participation, it is extremely difficult to develop an effective prevention approach." MPAA says that it can't tackle the problem alone and it needs "broadband Internet access service providers to cooperate in combating combat theft."

"No industry can, or should be expected to, compete against free-by-theft distribution of its own products," the brief adds.

"We thus urge the Commission to adopt rules that not only allow ISPs to address online theft, but actively encourage their efforts to do so," says the RIAA.

Content is king

To tie their arguments into the broader debate about an "open Internet," both groups argue that they are essential to the online environment. "The Internet without content would be nothing more than a collection of hardware," writes MPAA, "a series of computer links and protocols with great capacity to communicate but nothing to say."

The RIAA goes beyond broadband. "Digital theft means less art is produced, a harm that cannot be precisely measured, but whose impact on our culture is undoubtedly profound."

This emphasis on "content" as the driver of broadband access is certainly debatable. Academics have argued for some time about whether networks are driven by content or by "connectability." (Think the phone network, which offers little access to "content" but was a powerful tool of connection to others... and achieved near-total ubiquity because of it.)

But the MPAA is convinced that people get Internet access in order to acquire its content. "When Internet users seek access to stolen copyrighted material online, educational strategies can help inform them about authorized alternatives for online content, which in turn could spur broadband adoption as consumers seek legitimate offerings."

(One wonders what this means; presumably those "Internet users" seeking out stolen content already have broadband and would not be encouraged to adopt it by better online access to movies.)

Still the basic idea is clear: content drives broadband, pirate material is clogging the tubes, and everything broadband-related would be better if ISPs got involved in policing their own networks.

Also, the FCC should allow ISPs to prioritize traffic, especially latency-sensitive traffic like movies. But transparency—well, the MPAA and RIAA both support more ISP transparency on network management, just so long as it's not detailed enough to be a piracy blueprint.

I don't care WHAT they are trying to call "it". Keep the MPAA and RIAA out of my internet. PERIOD! The CONSUMER is the one that is GUARANTEED to lose. And I'm talking about the honest ones. Mark my words, if they get what they want one way or the other WE will be the ones paying the price!

Why do we continue to let these chimps talk? I mean seriously they want the already unpopular ISPs to be "encouraged" by the FCC to help them find and what? Ban pirates from the internet? Why the hell would any ISP be interested in cutting off a paying customer just to prop up a crusty obsolete business model? I find it amusing how the ii's try to equate themselves to content creation when mostly they are just manipulating artists to get rich. If the record industry went tits up tomorrow content would continue to be produced. Artists would continue their work, and with a little effort they would make more money than the scraps that the recording industry tosses them.

I don't advocate piracy, but as insane as it may sound, you can compete with free. There are always going to be people that will refuse to pay for things, but they weren't going to buy it anyway so who gives a shit about them? Someone stated some rough figures the other day about how the b&m stores were getting something like half the cost of then the Record company was getting mosta the other half, and the artist would see maybe a dollar if they were lucky. It seems to me that if the artist produces alone, and distribues electronically then they can sell the whole album for 5 bucks and make way more money. 5 dollars is damn near an impulse buy.

I really do not understand why I should have to pay a bunch of stuffy executives just to support a band that I like. Let the record companies die, I promise you that music will live on.

Originally posted by JohnnyConvoluted:Better start lobbying to outlaw musical instruments and brains. (Better start with the brains since it seems you have such a healthy head start.)

A beautiful pun if I've ever read one.

There, I went and stole your words, too. Now you no longer have those words because I have stolen them from you. If I had infringed the copyright of your words you'd still have them, I'd just be benefiting from them as well, but because I stole them you can no longer have them.

I honestly have NO PROBLEM is Net Neutrality does not extend to "theft" (illigal or unlawful content). HOWEVER, the determination of unlawful content need to be in the hands of authorities, NEVER the ISP.

In fact, anytime and ISP reports "suspected" unlawful activity on a consumer, should that result in charges, legal action, arrest, throttling, disconnection or any other "graduated response" even if approved by a judge in advance, should that later turn out to be overturned and the "victim" proven innocent, or even if charges are simpoly dropped, I want STIFF penalties for the ISP, not less than 10 times the actual loss, plus options for civil penalties up to $250,000. (per incident).

Sure, they can monitor their networks for illegal activity. Sure, if there's a KNOWN (documented by the government) illegal site it can be blocked or throttled. Sure, they can report suspected illegal filesharers to authorities. They BETER get it right however, and as far as it concerns evidence collection, they better have a warrent...

"The Internet without content would be nothing more than a collection of hardware," is a rediculous and misleading comment. It's worded in such a way as to imply that the **AA should or does control all content when in reality the most interesting and innovative aspects of the internet have nothing to do with them. I think the internet without their content actually wouldn't be a whole lot different. Bittorrent and rediculous lawsuits might be slightly less popular, though.

Originally posted by JohnnyConvoluted:Better start lobbying to outlaw musical instruments and brains. (Better start with the brains since it seems you have such a healthy head start.)

A beautiful pun if I've ever read one.

There, I went and stole your words, too. Now you no longer have those words because I have stolen them from you. If I had infringed the copyright of your words you'd still have them, I'd just be benefiting from them as well, but because I stole them you can no longer have them.

I've now stolen the words from both of you. WHAT NOW?

On topic:I wish everyone had fought harder against using the term "software piracy". Now the MPAA and RIAA think they have a license to escalate how they refer to copyright infringement. Next up they'll be saying that filesharers are raping their content.

We should preempt them and replace the term "graduated response" with "illicit internet termination". Doesn't that sound scarier? The ISPs are going to terminate your internet illicitly if big content has its way. I like the sound of it.

If you were to believe Big Content, the only content online is theirs. The vast majority of digital content on the internet has nothing to do with Big Content and has everything to do with regular people communicating. That's the true benefit that broadband can provide.

The internet without Big Content is probably a better solution. Do these guys really think that just because they exist they had a hand in making the internet a dynamic network? Youtube already showed that people rather make their own content than watch ad-laden drool that Big Content rolls out. Big Content, without people on the internet you would have no one to target your ads to. As a previous article stated, the internet's most important resource is people, contrary to BC's claim that it is what makes the internet vibrant.

While I agree the internet would be pointless without content, theirs is not the content I'm generally interested in. The reason I want and use the internet has practically nothing to do with the MPAA and little to do with the RIAA, and if they and their content disappeared tomorrow, I would still want my broadband. Of course I may not be typical, but I doubt I am the only one to feel this way.

quote:

nfhan: "The Internet without content would be nothing more than a collection of hardware," is a rediculous and misleading comment. It's worded in such a way as to imply that the **AA should or does control all content when in reality the most interesting and innovative aspects of the internet have nothing to do with them. I think the internet without their content actually wouldn't be a whole lot different. Bittorrent and rediculous lawsuits might be slightly less popular, though.

Well, even before I finished my rant, I find someone who agrees with me.

quote:

David Bradbury:If you were to believe Big Content, the only content online is theirs. The vast majority of digital content on the internet has nothing to do with Big Content and has everything to do with regular people communicating. That's the true benefit that broadband can provide.

What, already another? Maybe I shouldn't even post... Nah, I like preaching to the choir too much to stop my rant.

ANYWAY,

I certainly don't want ISPs forced to slow everyone down, so they can act as net cops for the MPAA and RIAA. And pay the inevitable increase in costs and decrease of service that would come with it.

As I see it, the whole copyright issue has been tilted so far in favor of the copyrights holders, big content thinks they should be able to interfere with anything that might possibly be used to risk their artificially enforced scarcity. That is certainly a cure worse than the disease. The Sony root-kit was a previous example of this...

Oh well, this reinforces my opinion that they vastly overvalue their own importance.

Originally posted by zelannii:I honestly have NO PROBLEM is Net Neutrality does not extend to "theft" (illigal or unlawful content). HOWEVER, the determination of unlawful content need to be in the hands of authorities, NEVER the ISP.

In fact, anytime and ISP reports "suspected" unlawful activity on a consumer, should that result in charges, legal action, arrest, throttling, disconnection or any other "graduated response" even if approved by a judge in advance, should that later turn out to be overturned and the "victim" proven innocent, or even if charges are simpoly dropped, I want STIFF penalties for the ISP, not less than 10 times the actual loss, plus options for civil penalties up to $250,000. (per incident).

Sure, they can monitor their networks for illegal activity. Sure, if there's a KNOWN (documented by the government) illegal site it can be blocked or throttled. Sure, they can report suspected illegal filesharers to authorities. They BETER get it right however, and as far as it concerns evidence collection, they better have a warrent...

I don't think the penalties should be on the ISP. I think there needs to be harsh penalties on whoever issued the false warning. How about a graduated response (harhar) plan? Every time you file a complaint that's proven false, you have to pay the victim $15,000 + damages. Double the amount every time. For every complaint after the third, introduce a 30 day privilege suspension on filing complaints. The victim of the disconnection should get something like 6 times the amount of time they spent disconnected on the highest tier the ISP offers payed for by whoever filed the complaint.

I think the ISPs need to stay neutral in the whole matter. It shouldn't be their job to police the internet.

I think without the internet, I would still be entrenched in dealing with what Big Content provides.

With the internet, I have so many options I can find (as well as create) that their products simply don't carry much value to me. Of course, they also think that when I spend $30 on a game instead of $30 on DVD/CD's that I must be pirating their content instead of replacing it with another form of entertainment.

The ISPs *ARE* a collection of hardware! The USPS *IS* a carrier of the mail!

If I illegally make a copy of a dissertation or poem or book or painting, and ship it through the USPS or FedEX or UPS, then THEY are not liable, but rather *I* am liable. The carrier is not involved and *should not* be involved in inspecting the thing carried. Same with the ISP!

It's not theft since they never sell anything to anyone. It's always a rental or lease, by their own contracts. They believe that if the DRM dies, so does the product so it is returned to them upon decay of some arbitrary physical contraption.

Giving anything of this nature away for free is nothing but a low, low price long term re-rental.

IMO its only "theft" when people take money for unlicensed distribution other wise it should fall under education, normal forms of fair use, ect,ect.

File sharing has a place in the modern world just make it so you can not take outside money to share the CP item you then marginalize it in order to allow a better digital market place on the net to be created.

side rant

When you have to many rules and regs and want absolute power over every detail you become a monopoly that will always need more money to run. If you get rid of the monolith the middle man and setup a digital system were a seller sets their price and 60% of that price goes directly to the CP owners there is no need for a bloated and over the top monolithic system to eat up half or more of its own profits that is only good for placing more and more limits and restrictions on consumers.....

Originally posted by fjpoblam:The ISPs *ARE* a collection of hardware! The USPS *IS* a carrier of the mail!

If I illegally make a copy of a dissertation or poem or book or painting, and ship it through the USPS or FedEX or UPS, then THEY are not liable, but rather *I* am liable. The carrier is not involved and *should not* be involved in inspecting the thing carried. Same with the ISP!

Keep yer stinkin noses out of my data packets!

That's a bad example. The USPS does care what you send through the mail, and they do have their own inspectors.

Let's use the privately owned but largely regulated phone system for examples.

Originally posted by zelannii:I honestly have NO PROBLEM is Net Neutrality does not extend to "theft" (illigal or unlawful content). HOWEVER, the determination of unlawful content need to be in the hands of authorities, NEVER the ISP.

In fact, anytime and ISP reports "suspected" unlawful activity on a consumer, should that result in charges, legal action, arrest, throttling, disconnection or any other "graduated response" even if approved by a judge in advance, should that later turn out to be overturned and the "victim" proven innocent, or even if charges are simpoly dropped, I want STIFF penalties for the ISP, not less than 10 times the actual loss, plus options for civil penalties up to $250,000. (per incident).

Sure, they can monitor their networks for illegal activity. Sure, if there's a KNOWN (documented by the government) illegal site it can be blocked or throttled. Sure, they can report suspected illegal filesharers to authorities. They BETER get it right however, and as far as it concerns evidence collection, they better have a warrent...

I don't think the penalties should be on the ISP. I think there needs to be harsh penalties on whoever issued the false warning. How about a graduated response (harhar) plan? Every time you file a complaint that's proven false, you have to pay the victim $15,000 + damages. Double the amount every time. For every complaint after the third, introduce a 30 day privilege suspension on filing complaints. The victim of the disconnection should get something like 6 times the amount of time they spent disconnected on the highest tier the ISP offers payed for by whoever filed the complaint.

I think the ISPs need to stay neutral in the whole matter. It shouldn't be their job to police the internet.

Instead of that, how about we just overwhelm the system with bogus complaints against anyone we don't like? Congress comes to mind.

I prefer to download any and all culture without discrimination, and will continue to do that on a daily basis as well as distribute it to other like minded people till either a) the record companies go belly uporb) copyright gets restored to its original intention, but still reduced to go with the present digital age, sayyyyy 5 years. (Borrowing from the pirate party's agenda there)

Till then, yes I download and share all kinds of digital files, yes I am in Stockholm, Yes, I am a mod at the site that my username refers to, and yes, I am behind a VPN - So IPRED and the FRA laws can kiss my Swedish behind along with the MAFIAA.

Originally posted by Traddy:It's not theft since they never sell anything to anyone. It's always a rental or lease, by their own contracts. They believe that if the DRM dies, so does the product so it is returned to them upon decay of some arbitrary physical contraption.

Giving anything of this nature away for free is nothing but a low, low price long term re-rental.

Originally posted by zelannii:I honestly have NO PROBLEM is Net Neutrality does not extend to "theft" (illigal or unlawful content). HOWEVER, the determination of unlawful content need to be in the hands of authorities, NEVER the ISP.

In fact, anytime and ISP reports "suspected" unlawful activity on a consumer, should that result in charges, legal action, arrest, throttling, disconnection or any other "graduated response" even if approved by a judge in advance, should that later turn out to be overturned and the "victim" proven innocent, or even if charges are simpoly dropped, I want STIFF penalties for the ISP, not less than 10 times the actual loss, plus options for civil penalties up to $250,000. (per incident).

Sure, they can monitor their networks for illegal activity. Sure, if there's a KNOWN (documented by the government) illegal site it can be blocked or throttled. Sure, they can report suspected illegal filesharers to authorities. They BETER get it right however, and as far as it concerns evidence collection, they better have a warrent...

I don't think the penalties should be on the ISP. I think there needs to be harsh penalties on whoever issued the false warning. How about a graduated response (harhar) plan? Every time you file a complaint that's proven false, you have to pay the victim $15,000 + damages. Double the amount every time. For every complaint after the third, introduce a 30 day privilege suspension on filing complaints. The victim of the disconnection should get something like 6 times the amount of time they spent disconnected on the highest tier the ISP offers payed for by whoever filed the complaint.

I think the ISPs need to stay neutral in the whole matter. It shouldn't be their job to police the internet.

Instead of that, how about we just overwhelm the system with bogus complaints against anyone we don't like? Congress comes to mind.

Originally posted by fjpoblam:The ISPs *ARE* a collection of hardware! The USPS *IS* a carrier of the mail!

If I illegally make a copy of a dissertation or poem or book or painting, and ship it through the USPS or FedEX or UPS, then THEY are not liable, but rather *I* am liable. The carrier is not involved and *should not* be involved in inspecting the thing carried. Same with the ISP!

Keep yer stinkin noses out of my data packets!

I'm pretty sure the USPS/UPS/FedEx x-rays packages, and if they find something illegal (e.g. a kilo of cocaine let's say) they pass the information on to the authorities. However, the authorities do the enforcing of the law, not the package handlers. The ISP should be a totally neutral party and should not be responsible for letting the cocaine get through the mail if they accidentally or purposefully don't scan every single package.

Originally posted by Demondeluxe:Why do we continue to let these chimps talk? I mean seriously they want the already unpopular ISPs to be "encouraged" by the FCC to help them find and what? Ban pirates from the internet? Why the hell would any ISP be interested in cutting off a paying customer just to prop up a crusty obsolete business model? I find it amusing how the ii's try to equate themselves to content creation when mostly they are just manipulating artists to get rich. If the record industry went tits up tomorrow content would continue to be produced. Artists would continue their work, and with a little effort they would make more money than the scraps that the recording industry tosses them.

I don't advocate piracy, but as insane as it may sound, you can compete with free. There are always going to be people that will refuse to pay for things, but they weren't going to buy it anyway so who gives a shit about them? Someone stated some rough figures the other day about how the b&m stores were getting something like half the cost of then the Record company was getting mosta the other half, and the artist would see maybe a dollar if they were lucky. It seems to me that if the artist produces alone, and distribues electronically then they can sell the whole album for 5 bucks and make way more money. 5 dollars is damn near an impulse buy.

I really do not understand why I should have to pay a bunch of stuffy executives just to support a band that I like. Let the record companies die, I promise you that music will live on.

x2 (Except that most people that I know who pirate content used to pay for said content before they learned out to get it for free. Annecdotal, I know. I also know that a lot of people don't care either way. Oh, well.)

Originally posted by ReaderBot:That's a bad example. The USPS does care what you send through the mail, and they do have their own inspectors.

Let's use the privately owned but largely regulated phone system for examples.

Mail and package carriers care to the extent that the package damages equipment or harms employees and other customers. If you embed a test tube full of Ebola virus inside an acrylic plastic cube that is vapor safe, they could care less. Just don't declare it.

Right. The Major Media Mafia needs protection from us. How about we the consumers get some protection from them? It isn't like the have tried to rip us off whole sale with back room deals fixing the prices of all on-line music of anything right? ROFL. What a ten ton load of horse shit. These bastards was to have the cake, eat it too, and then they want to steal out cake, and then eat that one as well! It is just too much for my mind to handle.

Also, it's not the job of the USPS, UPS, or FedEX to search their packages for illegal content. If they happen to find something, they will report it to the proper authorities, but they're not actively looking.

And it should be the same way with ISPs. They should not have the right to turn you off based solely on an accusation.

Originally posted by atergo:Also, it's not the job of the USPS, UPS, or FedEX to search their packages for illegal content. If they happen to find something, they will report it to the proper authorities, but they're not actively looking.

And it should be the same way with ISPs. They should not have the right to turn you off based solely on an accusation.

That's not to bad of a setup and mostly works like that for kiddy porn, kinda.

ISP's need to be ISPs IE service providers who provide flat rate service not police or worse yet "revenuers" who raise the rate of content and force you to pay more for internet because they got a tiered monopoly going.

Fair use is going to need to be expanded in order for the real harmful stuff to be done away with. If a person is not taking donations or making money its not harmful PERIOD end of conversation, if they are and a REAL educational setup then it might fall under fair use or GNU, If they are any other kind of setup or business and doing it then they should have zero protection against the media mafia one more distribution of unlicensed goods for donation or profit should be illegal.